Hand Guns - Yes or No

[phlogistician]

Max, the lowering of crime rates was nothing to do with concealed carry laws, there is a downward trend everwhere.

I have posted a graph previously, which shows gun homicide rates decreasing considerably after 1994, and asked you if you thought any of that eras regulations, Brady Bill, or Assault Weapons ban, were responsible. You didn't answer afaik. So if you refuse causality there, why claim it in Florida? Because it suits your agenda?

Yes I keep spouting registration and training, and moreover ACCOUNTABILITY.

Also, if you don't report crimes against you, you are abetting criminals. It also means that gun defense stats crime stats, and the supposed 'more guns = less crime' argument cannot be made.

All it shows is that again, places with fewer guns are safer places to live.

 

[RenegadeSith]

Well, what you actually said was;



Implying that criminals avoid people carryng guns.

Yes, I said that: It is true that a ciminal will not purposely go after a guy with a gun... if you're wearing your gun out on your hip in a holster for everyone to see, criminals usually will not mess with you.

I only implied that criminals avoid people who carry their gun in the open.

Kleck's study PROVES THIS, because 79.7% gun defenses are with CONCEALED GUNS. Do you understand what CONCEALED means? It means hidden, not seen, unknown, etc...

BUT, the Kleck figures turn that upside down. If you take the number of gun defenses reported by gun owners in the Kleck study, they are four times more likely to get robbed, than and 'average' citizen, according to reported crime stats. Which part if this don't you understand? It's quite simple, the Kleck figures thay attemtp to justify concealed carry are totally bogus, that's what!

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! Don't you understand??? Kleck's study does not compare how many gun owners get robbed versus non-gun owners... KLECK'S STUDY ONLY TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO USE GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!! If you got robbed and didn't have a gun to defend yourself with, you're not in Kleck's study. Do you understand now???

So, in short - I do not believe I'm safer from being targeted by carrying a concealed gun... with a concealed gun I appear to be a weak member of the "herd." I do believe that I have a better chance of excaping with my life by carrying, tho. If I carried openly, I would then feel safer from being targeted, since no idiot is going to attack someone who obviously has the means to defend himself.

You know, phlogistician... I don't mind a logical debate, but when you keep throwing up the same disproven arguments, it makes you appear to be uneducated. I believe it's time for you to change tact or cut and run... still waiting for that link, btw!

Please Visit Renegade's BS

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, I said that: It is true that a ciminal will not purposely go after a guy with a gun... if you're wearing your gun out on your hip in a holster for everyone to see, criminals usually will not mess with you.

How many states have open carry laws?

Kleck's study PROVES THIS, because 79.7% gun defenses are with CONCEALED GUNS. Do you understand what CONCEALED means? It means hidden, not seen, unknown, etc...

Jesus, you don't get it. All the Kleck study says, is that as a gun owner, you are four times more likely to get robbed outdoors, than in your own home! That's it, nothing more. It's a realtive figure amongst gun owners, yuy don't grasp what it is saying!

THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! Don't you understand??? Kleck's study does not compare how many gun owners get robbed versus non-gun owners... KLECK'S STUDY ONLY TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO USE GUNS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!!! If you got robbed and didn't have a gun to defend yourself with, you're not in Kleck's study. Do you understand now???

I'm not taking Klecks BS figures on heir own, but comparing them to nationally reported crime rates. Kleck puts America in the middle of a crime wave, if you believe his figures. If you take a gun owner to run the same risk as a non gun owner ("Do you understand what CONCEALED means? It means hidden, not seen, unknown, etc" so there's no reason why a non gun owner should be any different), Kleck is saying that people are robbed, or an attempt is made four times more often than the reported stats! Do you believe that TW Scott would have been mugged nine times in two hours in Gary, Indiana, as per his 'gun defense' claim? Or is he, and probably the majority of gun owners interviewed, exaggerating?

If I carried openly, I would then feel safer from being targeted, since no idiot is going to attack someone who obviously has the means to defend himself.

So cops, who carry openly, _never_ get shot at? Please!

You know, phlogistician... I don't mind a logical debate, but when you keep throwing up the same disproven arguments, it makes you appear to be uneducated. I believe it's time for you to change tact or cut and run... still waiting for that link, btw!

What disproved arguments? You have not proven that guns keep you safer. Far from it, gun owners report four times the amount of attempted robberies as the national average, if you believe Kleck. Guns would appear to bea trouble magnet! You have also not proven that without a gun the attempted crimes are any more successful. You admit that Kleck has no stats for comparison, so where do you get this idea from? Just a vaguie feeling of security because you pack heat?

The facts are, that the USA has easy access to guns, and a huge gun homicide problem. No matter what BS arguments you come up with, those death certificates still add up to the same number. Stats show that in countries without guns, the problem does not shift down to knives bats or garottes, and we murder far fewer people. You don't like the truth, and will do and say anything to keep your guns, even though in actuality, they are the putting your lives at risk. It's up to you to act. My interest is purely academic, living in the UK. I'm not going to get shot. You might, however.

 

[Baron Max]

Phlog, I just wanted to take this moment to say ......FUCK YOU!

If you don't want to carry a gun, don't. If you don't want to live in the USA, where it's like the Wild, Wild West, then don't!

But don't try to take my fuckin' guns or you'll have a major fight on your hands.

Again, just in case you didn't get it the first time .....FUCK YOU!

Baron Max, Wild West gunslinger extraodinaire!

 

[Chatha]

(laughs). ...in action again.

 

[baumgarten]

Phlog, I just wanted to take this moment to say ......FUCK YOU!

If you don't want to carry a gun, don't. If you don't want to live in the USA, where it's like the Wild, Wild West, then don't!

But don't try to take my fuckin' guns or you'll have a major fight on your hands.

Again, just in case you didn't get it the first time .....FUCK YOU!

Baron Max, Wild West gunslinger extraodinaire!

I know that goes for the US government as well. You would lose that fight, of course.

And yet you would die for your guns. Interesting. Are they really so central to your identity?

 

[Baron Max]

And yet you would die for your guns.

Huh? Where did you get that little tidbit of info?????

Are they really so central to your identity?

Huh? My guns are nothing more than any other tool that I use. If I want to drive a nail into a wood block, I use a hammer. If I want to go downtown, I use a car or truck. If I want to protect myself and my family from possible assault or robbery, then I use a different tool ...my guns. What does my "identity" have to do with any-fuckin'-thing????

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Great advert for why handguns are so wrong. This imbecile has ONE!

And what would you say if Phlog were trying to take your illegal drugs away from you? Would you be so docile and weak as to give them up without a fight?

Baron Max

 

[SoLiDUS]

They're wrong? Says who? Individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Your consumption of drugs doesn't exactly harm me, so why should I care? Oh, and don't you fucking dare bring out that six degrees of separation bullshit, because it applies to everything you would offer as an alternative, and there's no way for you to support it with evidence.

A little tangential, but it deserved to be asked.

 

[baumgarten]

Huh? Where did you get that little tidbit of info?????

don't try to take my fuckin' guns or you'll have a major fight on your hands.

You would obviously lose that fight if the one trying to take your guns was the only one with the legal authority to do so.

Huh? My guns are nothing more than any other tool that I use. If I want to drive a nail into a wood block, I use a hammer. If I want to go downtown, I use a car or truck. If I want to protect myself and my family from possible assault or robbery, then I use a different tool ...my guns. What does my "identity" have to do with any-fuckin'-thing????

If you would rather die than lose your guns, then it stands to reason that your guns are more important to you than your life. That makes them a principle that you choose to stand for, and that means you identify with that principle. So guns would be a part of your identity, if what you say is true.

 

[Baron Max]

If you would rather die than lose your guns,....

Where did I say that????? A "fight" or "major fight" is not the same thing as dying, for god's sake!!

Geez,.....!?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. Your consumption of drugs doesn't exactly harm me, so why should I care?

Well, the illegal drugs don't just grow in one's home, do they? The druggie has to go out somewhere and buy those illegal drugs from some drug supplier, a person who is selling those drugs illegally. Then one has to transport those illegal drugs in his car or on his person illegally in order to get to his home! All of that illegal activity, so he can suck illegal drugs into his lungs or inject illegal drugs into his body. Yeah, I'd say that there's a lot of harm that could be attached to illegal drug use ....you just refuse to see it or accept it.

A little tangential, but it deserved to be asked.

I agree ...and ditto for my reply comment.

Baron Max

 

[baumgarten]

Where did I say that????? A "fight" or "major fight" is not the same thing as dying, for god's sake!!

What kind of fight are you talking about? If the United States government literally comes to your house to take your guns and you try to stop them, then yes, a fight is the same thing as dying.

 

[Roman]

2) My pistol is concealed, so he will not even know that he's going to have to disarm it from me. It's not like I'm going to square off with him and warn him that I'm about to draw.

Concealed, huh.

 

[Roman]

What kind of fight are you talking about? If the United States government literally comes to your house to take your guns and you try to stop them, then yes, a fight is the same thing as dying.

Maybe he meant a legal fight.
You know, cowboys are notorious for hiring lawyers.

 

[Baron Max]

What kind of fight are you talking about?

Jumped to conclusion too quickly, huh ...and now you're trying to weasel out it? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

Jumped to conclusion too quickly, huh ...and now you're trying to weasel out it? ...LOL!

Baron Max

No.
He's not.
He came to a conclusion without revealing the postulates to you, and you were clueless. Completely clueless.

Funny you accuse him of what you're doing. Weaseling.

 

[SoLiDUS]

Well, the illegal drugs don't just grow in one's home, do they? The druggie has to go out somewhere and buy those illegal drugs from some drug supplier, a person who is selling those drugs illegally. Then one has to transport those illegal drugs in his car or on his person illegally in order to get to his home! All of that illegal activity, so he can suck illegal drugs into his lungs or inject illegal drugs into his body. Yeah, I'd say that there's a lot of harm that could be attached to illegal drug use ....you just refuse to see it or accept it.

Funny that you would accept alcohol and tobacco, however. Very selective of you, my hypocritical friend. What you choose to subject yourself to is entirely your business, nobody else's: if you wish to possess firearms, who am I to stop you?

I could say "there's a chance you will harm yourself!", which I suppose you could attempt to answer with "there is value in its possession!", and now you're really going into qualitative territory: the debate ends there.

I see no harm in the growing of a plant, the preparation of said plant, it's purchase, the transportation (now you're really grasping at straws) and consumption of the drug: would your perspective change if it was regulated by the government?

Don't tell me how to cut my grass or enjoy myself: I sure as fuck don't tell you how to dress or eat... and you could easily cause yourself greater harm with both of those than I could taking a recreational drug.

 

[Baron Max]

Funny that you would accept alcohol and tobacco, however.

Not hypocritical at all. Alcohol and tobacco are legal.

I see no harm in the growing of a plant, the preparation of said plant, it's purchase, the transportation (now you're really grasping at straws) and consumption of the drug:

What you see and what has been deemed illegal by the society is two totally diferent things! Are you suggesting that if we don't like some law, that it's okay to disobey it and expect no punishment for it? I mean, if I want to drink booze and drive, waht the hell, I see no harm in it ....as long as I don't hit anyone or anything. There are millions of drivers who drive while drunk and have never had an accident, so what's the harm? There are more drunk drivers who are never caught than there are that are caught or cause accidents. So are you suggesting that it's okay?

...would your perspective change if it was regulated by the government?

Of course! And I think many drugs that are illegal now should be legalized in the same way as alcohol and other drugs. But the difference is legal versus illegal ...and I don't think citizens should pick and choose which laws to obey and which to disobey.

Baron Max

 

[SoLiDUS]

Not hypocritical at all. Alcohol and tobacco are legal.

Of course! And I think many drugs that are illegal now should be legalized in the same way as alcohol and other drugs. But the difference is legal versus illegal ...and I don't think citizens should pick and choose which laws to obey and which to disobey.

Baron Max

LOL. There it is...

That's ALL I needed to see. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.